Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

what changes would you like to have in SMAC?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Didn't we have a Seleuceia on this board about seven years ago?
    (\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
    (='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
    (")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by CEO Aaron

      Even now in the midst of a focused 'push' of occupational forces, U.S. troops number 160,000 or so, and that includes non-combat troops, administrative personnel, right down to the secretaries and kitchen staff...
      US troops are just over 2 million in manpower...the fact that only 160,000 are in Iraq is simply evidence of how incompetent the white house administration is...

      If the US went into Iraq with overwhelming force, and didn't foolishly split its battallion into petty little squads of 20 or so men, the amount of casaulties would be significantly less, and the insurgency would be much less effective...sure, there'd still be insurgents, but they are successful mostly due to the fact that US forces are spread too thin...

      Obviously not all 2 million soldiers could go to Iraq (and that would be foolish as well), but just because the US government is incompetent/foolish/playing party politics/trying to play the "middle ground" doesn't mean the US military isn't capable of occupying successfully...

      Originally posted by CEO Aaron

      ...anyone with a thimbleful of sense could have told you that 4 years ago before this whole sad affair was started, based, as it was, on total bullsh*t:
      While the Bush administration lied (or simply is just that stupid), nonetheless invading Iraq and removing a dictator is an appropriate action...I understand that conflict and the amount of insurgent cells has increased exponentially since the US invasion, but that is more due to poor planning and action by the US government...

      Even if chaos resulting from any form of invasion is inevitable, creating a stable government that protects the freedoms of its people is important...Iraq was ran by a dictator that wantomly killed his own people and greatly suppressed freedom...the Western nations have handled this situation poorly, but nonetheless, removing the dictator and building an independent, stable government that allows freedom is the right thing to do for a nation like Iraq...

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Straybow
        Didn't we have a Seleuceia on this board about seven years ago?
        I wasn't on this board seven years ago, I just joined, sorry...

        Comment


        • #64
          Back off topic, no, the US could not do what you say. Occupation as an oppressive force is not something the US can do, politically. We consider minor things like the prisoner abuse a scandal. We won't do a Tiananmen Square or a Prague.

          True, the odds were against a stable provisional gov't being set up with sufficient political capital and police force to prevent sectarian violence. Doesn't mean it wasn't worth the effort.

          Back on topic, yes, occupation should be a more troublesome thing, with different rules for martial law, etc.
          (\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
          (='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
          (")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)

          Comment


          • #65
            Actually, having 8% combat troops in an active area is a pretty good ratio. Even with the large number of base closings in the Clinton era, the US has a huge number of bases around the world as well as troops serving in other capacities (such as Marines as guards at Embassies and Consulates), both with their own missions/responsibilities as well as serving as support and training. The 2 million number is a straw man.

            Wodan

            Comment


            • #66
              I don't like the U.N. because it allows dictatorships and such into a democratic setting. The applying country should have to be a democracy in order to join if we are going to abide by any laws it passes.

              How to win a war, I agree. Overwhelming force, total control and pacification. That is how war was fought and won hundreds of years ago. Now this piddle paddle nonsense just lets things fester and more people die and/or develop bitter hatreds for this or that group and nothing gets done.

              On topic, a building I would like to see is like the building in MOO2 that you could build if you had 2 types of aliens on a planet. A Alien Control Center or something like that. I forgot. Anyway, it could be called, in the spirit of the military facilities, a Propaganda Center, Doctrine Center or something like that. It could halve the time it takes for a base to convert.

              Comment


              • #67
                The 2 million number is a straw man.
                In addtion, it's just not true:



                We have some 1.4 million active duty servicemen, but bear in mind that when you talk of occupying a nation, the Air Force, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard really don't count for supplying troops on the ground. The number of enlisted men in the U.S. Army is just over 400,000, and some of them have to perform the non-combat duties I alluded to in my earlier post. So, with those figures, and the fact that military personnel do occasionally get to go home, 160,000 troops does seem like quite a ridiculously large number.

                I don't like the U.N. because it allows dictatorships and such into a democratic setting. The applying country should have to be a democracy in order to join if we are going to abide by any laws it passes.
                Well said. Which is why, as a cooperative international body, NATO has always been more effective organization than the U.N. But it also has a less ambitious scope. The trouble with excluding nations with rival ideologies is that it runs counter to the whole purpose of the United Nations in the first place, which is that it serve as a venue to avoid huge international conflagrations such as World War I. It's worth remembering that the U.N. was and is really just a second stab at the League of Nations, devised, for better or worse, by a Wilsonian ideology shaped by World War I, and the it shares exactly the same weaknesses that saw the disolution of the League at the outbreak of World War II.

                The only REAL difference between the U.N. and the League is the participation of the U.S., and yet even that doesn't account for its longevity and the lack of a global conflict the likes of WWII. Credit for that fact is more rightly laid at the door of nuclear deterrence.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Nerfing of chopper units. I currently play with them switched off entirely. Perhaps a mechanic that makes them attack at full strength only against units in the open would be good. That would make them useful as tank killers and aerial strafers, without making them the city-clearing units they currently are. Choppers should get a hefty penalty to assaulting a base, which is much more the bomber's duty.

                  [childish giggle] Heh! Heh! Allie Cove just said she "plays" with "choppers"! Heh heh! [/childish giggle]
                  Last edited by Alinestra Covelia; June 25, 2007, 16:57.
                  "lol internet" ~ AAHZ

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    An easy way to weaken choppers is just to drop their movement...the default is 8, which turns out to be 10 or 12 when morale modifiers are accounted for...lowering this to 2 would result in a movement around 4-6 for most choppers, meaning they wouldn't be as useful for offensive campaigns, but still very good for defending cities...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by CEO Aaron

                      We have some 1.4 million active duty servicemen...
                      And 1.2 million reserves, if you read the whole article, pushing the number to 2.6 million (reserves have, after all, served in the war)...

                      Originally posted by CEO Aaron

                      ...160,000 troops does seem like quite a ridiculously large number.
                      Only 10%-15% of those 160,000 have actually been combat infantry in the field at any given point of the war...16,000-24,000 is a rather unethusiastic amount of soldiers to have fighting in Iraq...my point is that more combat soldiers should be stationed, as 16,000 soldiers covering a whole nation is a little too few to fight an insurgency...

                      When I see that tens of thousands of personnel are stationed in NATO nations and staunch political and economic allies of the US, I think there is some poor political planning when only 16,000 combat troops are used to conduct an invasion...

                      Originally posted by Darrell01

                      I don't like the U.N. because it allows dictatorships and such into a democratic setting.
                      A dictatorship is not automatically a bad thing, and "democracy" should not be a requirement for joining an international body encompassing the entire globe..."democracies" can suppress freedom or hurt their people, and authortarian regimes can maintain a humane and stable government...

                      Invading a nation like Iraq because it has a dictator is poor reasoning...such an invasion should be because the dictatorship is detrimental to human rights, not because of the form of government (otherwise we'll have another Vietnam war)...
                      Last edited by Seleuceia; June 25, 2007, 18:30.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X